VIJAY RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.5.1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 1997 by Shri Kapileshwar Prasad, Sessions Judge, Giridih whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ - and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Co -accused Jai Krishan Rai, Pramod Rai, Ranjit Rai and Janardan Rai were found guilty for the offence under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were released on due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, co -accused Umesh Rai was not found guilty for the offence under Section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code and he was accordingly acquitted.

(2.) THE prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the written report (Ext. 2) of P.W.1 Jayanti Kumari, the informant, an unmarried girl aged about fifteen to sixteen years, alleged to be one of the victims of the ravishment in this case, lodged before Jamua Police Station on 20.5.1996 at 21.05 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 17.5.1996 at 15.00 hours on the bank of the river known as Nibro one kilometer north of village Badadhia, P.S. -Jamua, District -Giridih and also of the occurrence of the assault perpetrated on P.W.2 Gania Devi and other which is said to have taken place 17.00 hours on 20.5.96 in the said village and a case was instituted against the appellant and others by drawing of a formal first information report (Ext. 3) on 20.5.96 at 21.05 hours and the said formal first information report and the written report were received on 25.5.96 in the Court empowered to take cognizance.

(3.) THE appellant has pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and he claims himself to be innocent and to have committed no offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to caste rivalry prevailing in the village.